Learning Resources

Abstract: We are all invited to take the stage in some form in our lives, whether that be in an interview for work, a speech at a wedding, or simply asking a question in a business meeting or classroom setting. We all have ideas, questions or explorations which we hold back from sharing because our brains are hardwired to prioritize acceptance by our peers and avoid rejection and ridicule. Sometimes, this keeps us safe—but more often than not—it keeps us from truly stepping into a life of opportunity.

The first major theme of the presentation is the psychology of fear. What makes so many of our hands shake, our body’s fidget and our minds forget our words once so perfectly rehearsed? It is an evolutionary response, developed eons ago, designed to protect us. Public speaking asks us to do the one thing we are hard-wired not to do – step outside of the tribe and ask to be invited back in. As relatively weak and slow planetary beings, we survived only in community. Public speaking is the most vulnerable and scary thing that we can do. We will explore the role of this response and how it “shows up” for us in our modern-day world and body and four scientifically-proven ways to shift out of fear and into action using both science and story to address the “hack”.

The second major presentation theme is the role of nonverbal communication. Research shows that over 93% of communication is nonverbal, demonstrating that our brains are wired to prioritize nonverbal over verbal communication. But as presenters, we focus on what we say – rather than how we say it. We engage in fun-partner work to learn how our brains are specifically attuned to body language – and the signals that we are unintentionally demonstrating while speaking from a place of fear or anxiety.

The presentation is concluded with a challenge: to invite each audience member to make one commitment to themselves to lean in towards one area of fear in their life, whether that’s practicing a strategy at home or stepping onto the stage to share their message with the world.

Abstract: Challenging times continue for higher education: calls for more accountability, assessment of outcomes, evidence of institutional performance, relevance for life and careers, and student success. Integrated strategic planning and decision making in this ever-changing environment is critical for campus leadership. To maximize accountability, assessment, analytics, and accreditation, it is imperative for campus leaders to develop an integrated approach that begins with standard metrics, aligns with performance-based goals, and connects with accreditation requirements. Analytics, learning analytics, and learning management systems provide the crucial link to learning standards that support the reporting, monitoring, and improvement of student learning.

Abstract: Over the last decade, many academic institutions, from elementary schools to universities, have added academic makerspaces to their campuses. This development has enabled students and faculty to come together and collaborate, design, fabricate, and learn in shared spaces. This article describes how the creation and incorporation of academic makerspaces in a university learning ecosystem can help achieve accreditation. Specific examples are drawn from ABET’s engineering accreditation criteria. The article also explores how academic makerspaces can enhance teaching objectives and student outcomes by providing a space for learning technological skills within social contexts in interdisciplinary communities of practice.

Abstract: This article reviews 20 years of accreditation in developing economies, showing the progress made in quality assurance over this time and its impact on quality improvement. Quality assurance and accreditation are now nearly universal in the developing world, and the process is remarkably similar across countries. We see an overall congruence of goals and expectations and a growing recognition of the importance of what are seen as international standards. The process has led to significant improvements in the quality of higher education generally, a greater focus on teaching and learning, and increased public confidence in higher education as a result. Nonetheless, the quality of graduate education generally remains unacceptably low, and recognition by governments of the need to adequately fund public higher education is far too limited, with only a few exceptions.

Abstract: Three members of the Indiana University Bloomington team that coordinated the campus’s accreditation reaffirmation describe the process and the team’s approach to successfully completing the Higher Learning Commission review. By managing the work in a centralized way, the team drafted its assurance argument with an evidence-first approach. Collaborations across campus generated information about the institution’s best work and the newest initiatives aligned with the campus’s bicentennial strategic plan. The team shares lessons learned and how IU Bloomington is preparing today for the review in 10 years.

Abstract: Much like routine dental exams, accreditation reviews can create anxiety and generate short-term institutional activity that simulates long-term healthy habits. Authentic, ongoing planning and assessment aligned with accreditation standards reduces anxiety and produces successful results through holistic, efficient, and sustainable efforts. This session shares how one institution efficiently integrated and aligned planning and assessment activities with accreditation standards and cycles. We'll discuss how you can adapt a similar process at your institution so your institution can avoid redundant activities while achieving optimal institutional wellbeing.

Abstract: This book provides insight on the higher education assessment process with an emphasis on planning and metrics. Using their extensive experience on the University of Delaware campus, the authors give numerous examples of the integrated nature of planning. Intended for anyone on campus who is involved with the planning or accrediting process.

Abstract: In 1998, a Carnegie Foundation Commission Report criticized America’s 123 research universities for failing our educational system by ignoring undergraduate education. Notably absent from the Commission's list of recommendations was mentoring research university faculty as a strategy to improve their teaching. This article discusses strategic collaboration, a mentoring model that can contribute significantly to achieving this objective. Such a network can also create an environment conducive to interdisciplinary research that, because of its increased value and rewards at such universities, can provide an added incentive for faculty participation.